[NickRandom]

Thanks for the link. There are some real gems in there and also made for an interesting read as a non-cryptonite (in other words I have no dog in the fight, skin in the game etc).

"He only gave himself a 20 percent chance of success, but, in his mind, SBF needed extreme risk to maximize the expected value of his lifetime earnings—and, therefore, the good his earn-to-give strategy could do. The fact that he was, by his own lights, overwhelmingly likely to fail was beside the point."

I guess that the whole mess boils down to a few old chestnuts - #1) Don't bet money you can't afford to lose (investors) and also that #2) you can only run at the red-line in terms of pharmacology for so long before it bites you in the arse.

[smcl]

I'd take the "effective altruism" and long-termism stuff with a pinch of salt. Just seems like a way for wealthy people to justify hanging onto or acquiring boatloads of assets and saying "ah but it's for the good of humanity that I alone possess all this wealth"

[jnsaff2]

I mean "effective altruism" is really just "I know things better than you. See the amount of money I have made is proof, therefore I'll make the decisions on how to spend the money on shaping the future of those peons I took the money from instead of them, you know, doing it themselves".

Good old wish to tell others how to live in a cozy fuzzy warm blanket of dogood. See also politician, dictator, clergy etc.

[spicyusername]

It's a shame a few really visible assholes are ruining the public's perception of what is otherwise very reasonable.

The bit about making as much money money as you can is not at all what effective altruism is about, but as usual nuance is the first thing to go when social or traditional media reports on something.

[stephc_int13]

Yeah, this narrative is getting debunked as we speak. Long overdue.